Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coquet (US 2019/0071570 A1) in view of Walter (U.S. Pat. No. 4,984,376) and Coffman (Journal of Polymer Science, 1947, 2(3), 306-313).
Regarding Claims 1 and 3, Coquet teaches methods of making polyamide foam molded bodies (Abstract; ¶ 110) whereby polyamides produced from monomer compositions are combined with expansion agent in a mold and subsequently foaming is produced by opening the mold (i.e. releasing pressure of the mixture) (¶ 94-95, 110-119). The foaming agent used can be supercritical CO2 (¶ 93-94).
The polyamides themselves are block copolymers with polyamide blocks and polyether blocks (Abstract) of which can be formed via a two-step process where polyamide block hard segments are first formed and subsequently reacted with polyether block soft segment material (¶ 69). The polyamide blocks are derivable via condensation of caprolactam, equimolar mixtures of diamine/diacid, and excess diacid (¶ 49-56) such as PA 6,6/6 (¶ 59), which is seen to ultimately result in a terpolymer of caprolactam, PA 6,6, and polyether. Coquet teaches the polyether block segments can be introduced via polyetheramines (¶ 68).
Coquet differs from the subject matter claimed in that it is not expressly indicated diacid/diamine is reacted in the form of a nylon salt. In this regard, Walter also pertains to polyamide foams derived from polyamides with polyamide block hard segments and polyether block soft segments (Abstract; Col. 8, Line 35 to Col. 9, Line 19). Walter teaches it was known the art such polymers are normally prepared via reacting lactam/nylon salt in the presence of a minor amount of dicarboxylic acid to control the molecular weight of the resulting hard segment, which is subsequently reacted with polyether material (Col. 8, Lines 55-63). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to react PA 6,6 in the form of a nylon salt with excess diacid material, because doing so would predictably afford hard block segments of controlled molecular weight in accordance with the teachings of Walter.
While not detailing specifics as to how nylon salt is created, Coffman details known conventional methods of preparing nylon salts for creating polyamides, specifically by dissolving equimolar amounts of diamine and diacid into a neutral solvent (aqueous ethanol), stirring for a 2 hour time period, cooling to room temperature, and obtaining nylon salt after the salt crystals are precipitated via decantation and filtration (“Salt Preparation” of Page 308; Pages 311-312). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the known conventional process of Coffman in creating nylon salts used in the prior art, thereby predictably affording isolated salt substrates capable of being used in nylon polycondensation as taught by Coffman.
With respect to mol% ranges, Coquet teaches the weight ratio of polyamide block to polyether block ranges widely from 0.1-0.9 (Abstract) whereby up to 50 wt% of the polyamide monomers contains lactam (¶ 53-54). The molecular weights of the blocks can be substantially similar, such as Mn = 600 for polyamide block and Mn = 1000 for polyether block (¶ 107). Thus, Coquet is seen to be suggestive of overlapping quantities of PA 6,6/6 and polyether segments; for instance 53 wt% of polyether block with Mn of 1,000 and 47 wt% of a polyamide block with 50 wt% lactam, is roughly 14.5 mol% polyetheramine, 56.8 mol% caprolactam, and 28.7 mol% nylon 6,6. While not indicating a particular quantity of diacid, both Coquet and Walter clearly indicate excess amount of dicarboxylic acid to control the molecular weight of the resulting hard segment (¶ 56, Col. 8, Lines 55-63 of Walter). Thus, the quantity of diacid is a known result effective variable subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable/optimal excess diacid quantities within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desirable hard segment molecular weights.
Regarding Claim 2, Coquet teaches polyamides such as PA 6,6/6 (¶ 59), which is indicated to exhibit melting points, Tgs, and decomposition temperatures fully consistent with the claimed ranges (Examples 7 and 8 of Tables 1 and 2). Since Coquet teaches substantially similar polymers it stands to reason that such characteristics are necessarily exhibited in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 9, Coquet describes polyamide foams as described above.
To the extent that Coquet differs with respect to the various process limitations to create foam, it is noted that claim 9 is recited in the product-by-process format by use of the language, “manufactured according to…” Case law holds that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the present case, the foams of Coquet are seen to be no different than that indicated by the claims despite being made by alternative means.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coquet (US 2019/0071570 A1) in view of Walter (U.S. Pat. No. 4,984,376), Coffman (Journal of Polymer Science, 1947, 2(3), 306-313), and Wang (Polymer 2022, 238, 124388).
The discussion regarding Coquet, Walter, and Coffman within ¶ 6-13 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 4, Coquet differs from the subject matter claimed in that temperatures/pressures associated with supercritical fluid foaming are not described. Wang probed various parameters associated with foam injection molding with supercritical fluids (Abstract) and notes the pressures/temperatures associated with foaming/molding impact the resulting dissolution time of supercritical fluids into polymeric substrate (Sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.4; Figures 5 and 7). Accordingly, the pressure/temperatures used are seen to be known result effective variables subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover optimal or workable temperatures and pressures within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desired end results.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coquet (US 2019/0071570 A1) in view of Walter (U.S. Pat. No. 4,984,376), Coffman (Journal of Polymer Science, 1947, 2(3), 306-313), and Mumcu (U.S. Pat. No. 4,345,052).
The discussion regarding Coquet, Walter, and Coffman within ¶ 6-13 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 5, both Coquet and Walter allude to two-step protocols where hard polyamide blocks are created first and subsequently reacted with soft polyether blocks. The references differ from the subject matter claimed in that particular reaction parameters are not described. Coquet teaches general methods for two-step preparation of block copolymers are known) (¶ 69).
Mumcu describes particular two-step methods of creating polyether-amide block copolymers (Abstract) which afford high molecular weight products in relatively short production times (Col. 2, Lines 1-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the conventional two-step procedures of Mumcu toward creating the polyamides of Coquet because doing so would afford high molecular weight products in relatively short production times as taught by Mumcu.
Mumcu teaches embodiments where polyamide-forming monomers are first combined in a polymerization tank under the exclusion of air at pressures spanning 5-25 bar (equivalent to 5.1-25.5 kg/cm2) at temperatures spanning 200-320 degrees C for about 15 minutes to about 4 hours, after which the pressure is decreased to normal pressure and polyetheramine is fed to the polymerization tank whereafter the polycondensation occurs at temperatures spanning 230-300 degrees C until completion, such as 4-18 hours (Col. 2, Line 58 to Col. 3, Line 11; Examples 1 and 2; Claim 1). Mumcu teaches the exclusion of air whereby nitrogen is fed to the reactor (Examples 1 and 2), implying the pressurized reaction takes place under a nitrogen atmosphere.
The description of Mumcu reads on heating the mixture to more than 200 degrees C / more than 220 degrees C for at least 2 hour 20 minutes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Mumcu suggests the claimed ranges. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Mumcu. See MPEP 2123.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coquet (US 2019/0071570 A1) in view of Walter (U.S. Pat. No. 4,984,376), Coffman (Journal of Polymer Science, 1947, 2(3), 306-313), Mumcu (U.S. Pat. No. 4,345,052), and Dickey (Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology).
The discussion regarding Coquet, Walter, Coffman, and Mumcu within ¶ 18-22 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Mumcu teaches the pressurized reaction occurs with stirring (Example 1). While not describing a particular stirring rate, such is a known result effective variable as a particular degree of stirring is required for heat distribution and sufficient mixing of reactant materials. See for instance section 4.2 of Dickey. MPEP 2144.05(II). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover optimal or workable stirring rates within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desired end results.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coquet (US 2019/0071570 A1) in view of Walter (U.S. Pat. No. 4,984,376), Coffman (Journal of Polymer Science, 1947, 2(3), 306-313), Mumcu (U.S. Pat. No. 4,345,052), and Twilley (U.S. Pat. No. 4,808,675).
The discussion regarding Coquet, Walter, Coffman, and Mumcu within ¶ 18-22 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 8, Mumcu differs from the subject matter claimed in that particular work-up conditions are not indicated. Twilley also pertains to the creation of polyamide-polyether block copolymers (Abstract) and notes it was known in the art that after melt polymerization reaction is completed under nitrogen / ambient pressure, the melt can be extruded from the bottom of the reactor and pelletized (Example 1), construed as unloading/cutting under normal pressure and nitrogen atmosphere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to work-up the polyamides of Coquet/Mumcu using the methods of Twilley because doing so would result in the creation of polyamide pellets directly from the reactor suitable for use in the creation of articles (e.g. the foaming injection molding protocol of Coquet).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant generally argues the calculations performed rely on an erroneous premise. This is not found persuasive. The examiner’s position was, and is maintained to be, that the express teachings of Coquet is suggestive of mol% contents that overlap those claimed. The fact that Coquet suggests a polyamide:polyether ratio of 0.1 to 0.9 does not change the conclusion of the presence of overlapping quantities.
Applicant argues Walter teaches away from using a combination of lactam and nylon salt. This is not found persuasive as Walter is relied upon to establish it was well known in the at nylon salts can be used to create polyamide-polyether block copolymer foams and not to obviate a combination of lactam and nylon salt. Coquet clearly suggests, and does not teach away from, the combination claimed.
Applicant argues using nylon salts achieves high melt strength whereas Coquet allegedly describes mixing free monomers of free diamine and free dicarboxylic acid. To be clear, Coquet simply states the polyamides can be derived from at least one diamine and at least dicarboxylic acid and is silent as to whether individual monomers or salts are used in particular. As discussed, the use of nylon salts are well known and conventional within the field of polyamide synthesis (see Walter and Coffman). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find sufficient motivation to arrive at the subject matter claimed.
The examiner is unpersuaded by Applicant’s argumentation concerning the prior art’s supposed lack of recognition of perceived benefits of using nylon salts within the specification. The prior art need not recognize the criticality of a limitation, but rather the prior art needs to only teach that limitation. The rejections of record have shown that the claimed limitation is present in the prior art. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant. See MPEP 2144(IV). It is also noted the perceived relevance of salt vs amine/diamine set forth within the specification is a nylon salt is said to give a polymer whereas diacid/diamine renders polymerization unsuccessful (¶ 43-47). The prior art clearly teaches one would expect polymerization to successfully occur should a nylon salt be used.
Applicant argues unexpected results, namely enhanced foaming during CO2 supercritical foaming.
With respect to product claim 9, Applicant’s allegation of unexpected results lacks significance to the extent that it can be regarded as unexpected. The experimental data pertains to comparative findings with respect to a particular method of foam preparation as opposed to the foams themselves. Coquet already describes the creation of polyether-polyamide foams. Densities as low as 200 kg/m3 are reported (¶ 24), corresponding to expansion ratios of roughly 5 – 5.5 (assuming an unfoamed polyamide density around 1-1.1 g/mL). Claim 9 does not appear to require that any particular density or expansion ratio be achieved.
With respect to method claim 1, Applicant’s allegation is unpersuasive as the claims at issue is not commensurate in scope with the evidence offered in support of Applicant’s allegation of unexpected results. Claim 1 refers to generic diacid and nylon salt, but evidence is only provided for nylon 612 salt with dodecanedioic acid and nylon 66 salt with hexanedioic acid. There is insufficient evidence the results alleged to be unexpected occurs throughout the scope of the claim and one of ordinary skill would be unable to ascertain a trend within the data to reasonably extend the probative value thereof to encompass the entire subject matter claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
